It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Marxism, specifically?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
So one phrase I've heard thrown around a lot lately is "cultural Marxism." Supposedly, this is what the NWO has used to destroy Western society. I've been accused of being a cultural Marxist myself, and it's probably true. The ideology is apparently so prevalent in society, that I probably can't help it.

The thing that I don't understand though, is why Marxism in particular? Why did they choose that particular ideology to use against us? Why not Capitalism, or fascism, or just keeping us all Christian still, if they really have that much power?

The main reason why it really doesn't make any sense, is because Communism was depicted as a threat to America for a long time; and now everyone is saying that society is irreversibly infested with it.

So, yeah...why use Marxism as a particular means of control?




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Because it's easier to attack a figure head than a whole movement of thought.

Back then, there was two prevailing theories : protectionism or liberalism.
And both have proved to fail over and over again, generating crisis after crisis.

Socialism was first born out of some christian circles. Marx was just one of its thinkers.

The roots of socialism / marxism were, back then, same stuff as it is today : the quest for more social justice and a fair redistribution of resources, not just some scheme to allow the lords and popes to hoard the riches of the people.

It really is no wonder that in a time of crisis, voices are heard asking to tax more the rich.
It's been the same old game all along, just enjoy the ride.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Now, all your hate posts against me make complete sense.



You to Chrysalis
edit on 8-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterGemini
reply to post by petrus4
 


Now, all your hate posts against me make complete sense.



You to Chrysalis
edit on 8-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



And what is this about ?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 



So, yeah...why use Marxism as a particular means of control?


It's all about what gives a given interest leverage.

Communism is a small-scale concept that works. You see it in use all the time in suburban and rural communities where services and goods are exchanged/bartered with little real attention paid to the 'value' of each. I fix my friends' computers because we have each others' backs - if I need a ride, some time, they will give me one. It's a very loosey-goosey system based around a direct appreciation for the others' contribution to your life. It is small-community dynamics at its core.

The problem comes when you try to scale it up. Who are you? Why should I trust you are doing your part? Why should you trust I am doing mine? This is where -communism- collapses. It simply doesn't work when people do not have direct knowledge of each other.

Money now becomes a bartering standard. Socialism is a slight adaptation of the bartering system, which essentially states that all people are entitled to the same rewards regardless of their productivity. My five watermelons grown in the field are worth the same as your two leather saddles. Both of us should be entitled to the same standard of living.

Except... obviously, the saddle is going to be more desired and valued by many compared to my five watermelons. Sure - watermelons are good... and -I- would want them over a saddle (as I, personally, have no use for one) - but there are many people growing watermelons along with me, and not quite so many making saddles.

You see where this is going. The inherent supply/demand/usefulness/desire factors start wreaking havoc with the idea that I can grow five watermelons and be entitled to the same rewards as you.

Any attempts to regulate this and make it "fair" will result in failure.

The free market simply lets things be made and exchanged according to their value. People with rare talents, access to rare resources, or with methods of making more goods/services available will see greater prosperity. I can't grow five watermelons and expect that contribution to be worth the same as your two saddles.

Move on over to today, and the draw of Marxism/Socialism gets its strength from the wealth disparity brought about by the loan-intensive lifestyle we live today. The rise of large corporations have also contributed to this - being large, faceless institutions that place a value on our education, talents, and experience - a value upon our very being.

The change in the market has also done a lot to bring about the shift toward Marxism. Even as late as the 60s, hard-labor could pay fairly well because it was -hard- and part of driving our nations' industry. Fast forward to today, where robots and machines have taken over a lot of the hard labor - many men can be replaced with a few machines. With a high availability of workers with little requirement in terms of experience, training, etc - their overall value remains low, if not unchanged, by comparison to those with more technical skill sets and working to manage the company.

This has lead to "why do I work my ass off for 50 hours a week and get paid a tenth of what the guy sitting in front of a desk all day gets?" It is an understandably frustrating scenario - particularly when one feels enslaved due to debt payments and living near (if not over) a maxed-out income.

The key to how/why it is being used as a form of control is inherent in the very sentiments used to justify it. The focus is jealousy and, ironically, greed. Rather than the focus being on "how can I improve my life and help others around me?" - The focus is on "why do they have so much, 'we' are more deserving of it."

It's an inherently selfish movement with a great potential for conflict and violence. People are being encouraged to forget their own personal ambitions for the sake of destroying/seizing the ambitions of other people. The real nail in the coffin comes from the people behind these movements who live in a life of luxury afforded by their followers.

The free market isn't saintly. However, none of these "income equality" leaders live according to an 'equal income' - or expect to do so any time in their life (they expect to be exalted for their efforts to bring about equality... kind of funny).



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
So one phrase I've heard thrown around a lot lately is "cultural Marxism." Supposedly, this is what the NWO has used to destroy Western society. I've been accused of being a cultural Marxist myself, and it's probably true. The ideology is apparently so prevalent in society, that I probably can't help it.

The thing that I don't understand though, is why Marxism in particular? Why did they choose that particular ideology to use against us? Why not Capitalism, or fascism, or just keeping us all Christian still, if they really have that much power?

The main reason why it really doesn't make any sense, is because Communism was depicted as a threat to America for a long time; and now everyone is saying that society is irreversibly infested with it.

So, yeah...why use Marxism as a particular means of control?

The Silent Curtain of Cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism (aka, multiculturalism, and political correctness) was devised NOT by the NWO but by the Marxist Communists after WW I failed to
create communism in Europe. Their reasoning was that the Christian church,the family unit, and western
civilization was what prevented communism from taking hold there so those institution must be destroyed.
Since they did not have power to enforce their ideas on society, they decided they would have to "March
through the Institutions of Society"(schools,colleges,public institutions,etc) to accomplish their goals.
Their goals are to create the perfect classless equal society of Communism.
But first they must destroy the individuals mind in order to recreate it.
There are three players in the game.
First are the left wing liberal Cultural Marxists who believe in their Communist Ideology.
They have become quite good at destruction and silencing their opposition.
Second are the right wing business owners who view excess immigration and multiculturalism
as a way to destroy the middle class,unions and thus to Lower Wages so they go along with most
of cultural Marxism.
Third is the ELITE RICH or NWO,who control the politicians, who see the destruction of the middle
class as increasing their power and wealth.

It seems there is always this dynamic between capitalism which is a form of slavery and
communism which claims equality but ends in totalitarianism. For a while western civilization
has had socialism which is somewhere in the middle.
Society is now so infected with cultural Marxist notions of equality, that Islam is now the
New Christianity. There is no such thing as an Islamic Terrorist. They are just generic terrorists,
as if Christian suicide bombers were just as natural.
Anyone who challenges their notions of equality is branded a racists bigot.
White people are the principle target since they are the ones who have something to take from.
The Cultural Marxists have failed totally in regards to the Elite Rich who now are richer than ever.
They have destroyed the middle class though and that is enough success for them I suppose.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual
edit on 17-9-2011 by bittersocialist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo,



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
And that's why socialism is the way forward



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by petrus4



It seems there is always this dynamic between capitalism which is a form of slavery and
communism which claims equality but ends in totalitarianism.



Communism is Leninism, socialism is Marxism. True socialism actually depends on the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as Marx put it, i.e. direct democracy. It's so frustrating when people look at Russia and China and conclude that that is socialism - it is NOT - refer to my posts above for an explanation os socialism and why it would work if ever implemented faithfully.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bittersocialist
 



And that's why socialism is the way forward


.... No, that hideous tower of babble is evidence of why you're full of beans. You can consider the next statement to be an insult, but it pretty much sums up my response: you're smart enough to be dangerous, but, unfortunately; not smart enough to be correct.


It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees.


Stop trying to use big words, you're only confusing yourself.... and making it difficult to read your post.

Here is the thing - you are right. The individual is dependent upon society; just as society is dependent upon the contribution of each individual.

Not all people are the same, and not all contributions are the same. Ants are pretty simple - as are bees. Their behavior and function are quite simple. However... how does one compare the farmer's contribution to someone whose job is to prepare salads and cold dishes in the back of a restaurant? Which is more vital to society?

Socialism would hold that both are equal. However, common-sense would say that people can fix their own damned food if they have to - and the function of a cold-dish servers is merely a convenience brought about by the relative wealth of others (who can afford to pay another person carry out that service).

This is the inherent lapse in socialist logic. Not all jobs and contributions are equal. A doctor or nurse has a contribution that is infinitely greater than a dishwasher in a restaurant. Anyone with a functioning brain and body can (at least in theory) wash dishes. Someone who both has the mind and training to heal another person is much more difficult to come by.

In a sense - the "ants and bees" hyperbole misses the most obvious flaw: all of the worker ants/bees exist to protect/serve the queen and her offspring (which turn out to be more drones, most of the time). Worker bees don't exist to serve worker bees. They exist to serve a queen and her offspring - helping the other workers is borne of that prerogative.


Production is carried on for profit, not for use.


That which is profitable is that which has a use to another person. While what is of use cannot be reduced to a universal constant, the person purchasing it must value the item to be worth the money spent on it.

A game programmer has little 'use' aside from making something to entertain other people. People only need to be entertained when not beating their head against a wall at some job (or against a shovel in the field... you get the idea). Productivity breeds free time and wealth - which breeds pursuits of leisure and entertainment and creates an array of roles in society that gain value (bards don't have much use in a starving village - only when that village is experiencing plenty can that bard be paid to sing and entertain).


The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.


This misses the most fundamental point that can be made about humans: our individuality. Cisco systems - now a massive corporation, a subsidiary of which: "Linksys" you are probably familiar with; started from a college dormitory when a couple students etched and soldered their own boards to make routing equipment and sell it.

Apple started from the garage of a student with the help of some friends.

For the free market to work - any individual must be able to pursue, with in reason, their own productive ambitions. I am a "computer whiz" and have a hell of a reputation amongst my peers for being able to resolve their computer woes. It's a tax nightmare for me to open up a "private practice" business - and I perform the service enough that if I were to charge (even a modest $10 for home network setups and software installs or browser tune-ups) - I would quickly find myself in the territory of tax evasion if I didn't file correctly. Luckily - my room mate has a Master's in tax accounting and auditing - and it is a venture we have thought about pursuing.

Un/Under-employment is an opportunity in and of itself within a free market. No one is reliant upon corporations to hire them.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
What I'm seeing in this thread so far, is people critiquing one system that hasn't worked, (Marxism) and then advocating another system that hasn't worked. ("Free market," Capitalism)

I think the real problem, more than anything else, is the fact that the world is currently dominated and run by psychopaths. So you could implement literally any sort of system you liked, and it wouldn't really matter, because either way, in the end, the psychopaths would still infest it, climb to the top of it, and screw it up.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 



What I'm seeing in this thread so far, is people critiquing one system that hasn't worked, (Marxism) and then advocating another system that hasn't worked. ("Free market," Capitalism)


Except the free market does work. Capitalism exists in any system - people will naturally seek to exploit their surroundings - it's kind of how we have survived as long as we have.

The free market is the epitome of human ingenuity and individual aspirations. When any person begins to make or produce something to exchange with another person - the free market is at work. This exchange is the basis for society. The introduction of monetary standards and employment concepts does not change the fact that the free market is idea that any person can choose to make and exchange some good or service with the net result being a benefit to all involved in the exchange.

Socialism and many of its forms all predicate their solutions on the basis that wealth is somehow a fixed or limited resource that must be evenly distributed. This is silly as one cannot seriously claim that the wealth of the Renaissance existed in the tribal origins of humanity; or that the wealth of today is the same as that of a thousand years ago.

When any person decides to produce a good or service and exchange it - wealth is created. Thousands of unemployed mean thousands of people willing to do and make things for food (certainly, many have some skill sets). The problem isn't the free market. The problem is a lack of it. Why are these people not 'doing their own thing?' What is preventing them from making the goods and services many of them know how to do (and are willing to do)? What is preventing those with capital from backing the productive initiative of others?

It's not greed. Hell - there is a #-ton of money to be made in wise investment in start-up businesses.

It's a combination of things. For starters - too many people are brain-washed into believing they have to be employed. We go to school so we can get a decent job. We get a degree so that employers will be willing to hire us. We get industry certifications to put on employment resumes and applications. The list goes on. Our entire society has become very fixated on the idea of being an employee rather than an entrepreneur.

You can blame public education for that one, if you want.

I've been to some of the economic hot-spots of the world. In Korea - a huge percentage of the people are doing something. Many families own and operate restaurants - living on the property. The areas below apartments are open-air markets selling everything from plushies to fish-in-a-barrel (it is absolutely bizarre to walk down the streets and see LCD TVs and meat coolers in an open air market next to stands of fruit and asian-themed throwbacks to the Renaissance). Just about every square inch of ground is used for growing some variety of plant or another - potted vegetables amidst highway intersections and other kinds of stuff that makes you do a double-take...

That is why their economy is growing even while ours is declining. Their culture supports and endorses one's own efforts to produce and grow in wealth; even if they do have universal healthcare concepts.

If you want to see the U.S. economy take off, again, we have to pave the way for business and be willing to accept some changes to the way we do things. We've been living at a standard of living several years in advance of our incomes through the lending system. We will have to let that collapse run its course - it will be a few years before we can see marked recovery from that, alone.

That doesn't even begin to factor in the problem of national spending being in the debt by 5-8% of the GDP, annually. That is absolutely ridiculous and will collapse the value of the dollar in a heartbeat if we don't knock that # off.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


You're claiming the author of that article is not smart enough to be correct?
You're also saying that he tries to use big words, and is thereby confusing himself?
I deliberately didn't credit the author because I wanted to expose something - the arrogance of capitalists.
It seems that no matter how much theoretical or historical evidence is put before them they always manage to ignorantly wade through it and reassert their position. The way you have completely disregarded the main points of the article and then chucked a few stock, boringly common arguments at me reminds me of the way religious apologists argue with atheists.

I will address your arguments before telling you who wrote that article.

You say this

Not all people are the same, and not all contributions are the same. Ants are pretty simple - as are bees. Their behavior and function are quite simple. However... how does one compare the farmer's contribution to someone whose job is to prepare salads and cold dishes in the back of a restaurant? Which is more vital to society?

Socialism would hold that both are equal....This is the inherent lapse in socialist logic. Not all jobs and contributions are equal. A doctor or nurse has a contribution that is infinitely greater than a dishwasher in a restaurant. Anyone with a functioning brain and body can (at least in theory) wash dishes. Someone who both has the mind and training to heal another person is much more difficult to come by.


Socialism would not hold that both are equal, this is such a common misconception, and one so easily remedied
by even light research into the ideology that I have to conclude that you've never studied socialist theory, let alone read anything by Marx or Engels.

Socialism would hold that what is vital to society should be democratically decided, for example a doctor's work would doubtlessly be voted as of more worth than a cleaner's, and their wage would be decided accordingly. The key difference is that the cleaner would not have to work outrageously long hours for outrageously low pay - as he does under capitalism.



That which is profitable is that which has a use to another person. While what is of use cannot be reduced to a universal constant, the person purchasing it must value the item to be worth the money spent on it.


Yes of course it is, again you've completely missed the point. The author goes on to say "An army of the unemployed almost always exists...Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted". Here he is making the connection between the profit motive and unemployment - if production were carried out solely for use rather than profit then (involuntary) unemployment would not exist. It is the drive for profit which restricts the amount of workers the capitalist employs - if he has too many and is therefore producing more than there is demand for his profits suffer.


Again the economy would be democratically planned, that's one of the central pillars of socialism, so if there were a desire for game programmers, for entertainment (as there of course would be) then they would be valued accordingly.

(Continued below)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



Productivity breeds free time and wealth - which breeds pursuits of leisure and entertainment and creates an array of roles in society that gain value


Productivity under socialism would be significantly increased due to many factors both psychological (youtube "rsa animate - drive the surprising truth" for the psychology) and practical. Due to the risk factor of an unplanned economy much productivity is wasted due to lack of demand, lack of profit. Also due to the competitive nature of the system much duplication of research etc occurs - more waste. Many studies have shown that cooperation on a large scale (i.e. a planned economy) is the most productive way to organise. So under socialism there would in fact be more opportunity for games designers and the like due to the lessened amount of work we would all have to do just to survive.


Un/Under-employment is an opportunity in and of itself within a free market. No one is reliant upon corporations to hire them.


Utterly ridiculous, the vast majority of people are reliant upon employment - that's a central pillar of the free market. Even if everyone were innovative enough to start their own business the businesses would fail because they need employees and everyone would be too busy trying to start their own business... Your argument here makes absolutely no sense, real sloppy thinking.

I bet you're still wondering who the author of the article is, the author whom you claimed was "not smart enough to be correct", the author whom you said was confusing himself by trying to use big words.

The author of the article was Albert Einstein.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



Socialism and many of its forms all predicate their solutions on the basis that wealth is somehow a fixed or limited resource that must be evenly distributed.


No it doesn't, at all. Do some research, you're making yourself look like a fool.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bittersocialist
 



Socialism would hold that what is vital to society should be democratically decided, for example a doctor's work would doubtlessly be voted as of more worth than a cleaner's, and their wage would be decided accordingly. The key difference is that the cleaner would not have to work outrageously long hours for outrageously low pay - as he does under capitalism.


Translation: Everyone gets paid the same.

Don't pretend to tell me about socialism - I am a government employee. The worst part about it? It takes an act of congress to fire someone who really has no business doing the job. Sure - the good part about it is that you get paid the same whether you do the job in 5 minutes or 5 hours - but that can come around to bite you in the butt when you're working 14 hour shifts to cover the work-load.

The hours worked are dictated by the work - not by the economic style. The Military holds some of the laziest and most rigorous hours. A bird goes down for an engine or avionics gripe, and the whole squadron is working 24/7 to bring that aircraft up so it can perform the mission that is critical. On the other hand... there are days when nothing's happening and you can cut most of the shop at noon.

When I worked in a factory - (they had a union... but not really - it had no power) we held regular hours. Sure - we kicked ass during those hours - but we had a fairly consistent, routine work-load. We worked eight hours a day with a half-hour lunch break (no other breaks - which wasn't so bad unless you were back beating your head against the wall in the grinding room). They didn't like paying overtime (1.5x - except on Sundays, which was 2x), and you got overtime on a per-day basis (anything over 8-hours a day was overtime).

Was I getting $20 an hour to operate an impact wrench at a Ford plant? Nope. I got paid less than what my job and flexibility were worth, to be honest. When I informed my managers that I needed to seek employment more local to my living area (it was a hell of a commute for the job) - I was offered a pretty hefty increase in my wages (and probably should have taken it, to be honest).

Under socialism - my managers have no control over wages. Sure - they could use a paygrade system like in the military - but in order for that to work, there is going to have to be a "you can only have x number of such-and-such paygrade" - which is going to make it work like the military's promotion system.... where people are promoted simply to fill vacancies or denied just rewards because of over-manning.


Here he is making the connection between the profit motive and unemployment - if production were carried out solely for use rather than profit then (involuntary) unemployment would not exist. It is the drive for profit which restricts the amount of workers the capitalist employs - if he has too many and is therefore producing more than there is demand for his profits suffer.


This is, simply, not the case. In Capitalism - the unemployed are free to pursue what their abilities and influence allow them to produce. All economies are need and want-driven. People need food - unemployed or not. Someone is eventually going to get the bright idea to make some food for them - in exchange for some good or service (because they spent a lot of time producing that food).


Again the economy would be democratically planned, that's one of the central pillars of socialism, so if there were a desire for game programmers, for entertainment (as there of course would be) then they would be valued accordingly.


There wouldn't be any game programmers. There wouldn't be any computers. The state never hired anyone to invent something that isn't necessary. They would, perhaps, hire stage performers.

However... in order to correctly plan the economy, you must have a good estimation of your manpower pool. In order to do that, you can't have kids deciding what they will be when they grow up (not really, anyway - you have to set up minimum/maximum course sizes).

Why should someone invent the transistor? Do you see where this is going?

... I really don't want to continue in another post, but I will.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bittersocialist
 



Productivity under socialism would be significantly increased due to many factors both psychological (youtube "rsa animate - drive the surprising truth" for the psychology) and practical. Due to the risk factor of an unplanned economy much productivity is wasted due to lack of demand, lack of profit. Also due to the competitive nature of the system much duplication of research etc occurs - more waste. Many studies have shown that cooperation on a large scale (i.e. a planned economy) is the most productive way to organise. So under socialism there would in fact be more opportunity for games designers and the like due to the lessened amount of work we would all have to do just to survive.


Not necessarily. Most of the guys in the military would not be able to handle a factory job - they would be fired within the first two weeks. A factory employing less than 200 people was capable of producing several million dollars worth of product each week. It took some 20 air frame mechanics over a month to perform a routine inspection of a single aircraft.

Those are people with valuable skill sets (if an unrecognized work ethic) - the time they waste fooling around is time that they could be spending talking with people from other trades and hatching an idea for some new device or gizmo. It is time they could be devoting to anything other than what they are taking forever and a day to do.


Utterly ridiculous, the vast majority of people are reliant upon employment - that's a central pillar of the free market.


No, your statement is ridiculous. The crux of the free market is that anyone can go out and do something as simple as cut up some sticks and find someone willing to give them a few eggs (or whatever) for them (because they have a use for those sticks... maybe to burn - but someone already took the time to gather them up, time that you could spend doing something else, like tending chickens).


Even if everyone were innovative enough to start their own business the businesses would fail because they need employees and everyone would be too busy trying to start their own business... Your argument here makes absolutely no sense, real sloppy thinking.


Thank you for demonstrating your reliance upon the employee mindset.

You don't have to be employed by anyone other than yourself. You hire employees when your business volume or requisite trades expand beyond your own capability (and even then, there is what is known as sub-contracting - where you do part of a job and hand it off to someone else to apply their skills to it - and finally someone to finish the product).

People become employees when they, effectively, market their service. Every employee is a private contractor - they are responsible for fulfilling the contract they take. At any time, they are more than capable of using their skills to produce and sell their own product/service on their own terms - or to seek a contract with a different business.


I bet you're still wondering who the author of the article is, the author whom you claimed was "not smart enough to be correct", the author whom you said was confusing himself by trying to use big words.

The author of the article was Albert Einstein.


I call a thought process like I see it. There's a reason Einstein was not able to finish his "theory of everything." Don't get me wrong - the man had some brilliant insights.

However, where he failed - I will succeed. It is in my blood.


No it doesn't, at all. Do some research, you're making yourself look like a fool.


Sure it does. Socialism doesn't account for the invention and establishment of new devices. This is one of the reasons behind the collapse of the USSR (among many things). They were simply not able to keep up with the pace of development in the rest of the world -and- take care of other necessities. There are simply so many factors - many of which are unknowable - to adequately plan an economy.

It is what we call "nonlinear." For example - there is no perfect propeller. There is an 'ideal propeller' for a given range of conditions - but not for all conditions. Similarly, there is no perfect economy. You cannot know enough about all the conditions or control enough of the factors to design the best economy - and it will suffer when conditions stray outside the parameters of your design (and they will).



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


You haven't actually addressed even one of my points in your reply so I'm not going to repeat myself.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   
If any mods are reading this I trust you understand why I posted the entire article without citation - to make a point about the arrogance of capitalist apologists. Here's a link to the original article. monthlyreview.org...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join